According to the publications, as part of the unity contacts, Veto cast a vote on Edelstein's return to the position of Knesset Speaker. He claims that his resignation after the High Court decision, and his unwillingness to convene the plenary to elect a permanent chairman, is an unprecedented act that requires his removal Is this requirement legitimate? What is at stake?

Seemingly, considerations of the unity of the nation should prevail over personal comfort considerations. In this context, however, it is important to understand what has happened in recent weeks. Due to the impasse in the Israeli parliament after a third election in the past year, Blue and White formed a coalition to change democratic rules of the game and personal legislation to prevent Netanyahu and the right-wing bloc from forming a government.

It was an attempt at an anti-democratic move that could lead us to a dangerous constitutional crisis. The cornerstone of this move was the removal of Temporary Knesset Speaker Yuli Edelstein. Edelstein tried to prevent this move, the left appealed to the High Court, and the chain of events and their end are known to all.

Now it is convenient for the left to personalize the political and legal happenings, in the hope that Edelstein will be abandoned. However, this is not a personal struggle of Edelstein, but a struggle of value and principle over the image of the State of Israel. This struggle is waged in a state of varying intensity in the place of the state to this day.

However, many scholars and commentators have noticed that following the upheaval of the '77 elections and the right-wing victory in politics, the Left began to use the Supreme Court increasingly to promote its values ​​and goals. Some High Court judges - such as President Landau and Justice Vitkon - held that the law did not grant The High Court has the power to intervene in the Knesset's proceedings, and that the Knesset has its own internal supervisory mechanisms.

Landau also warned that the involvement of the High Court in the political fray would lead to the High Court's politicization itself. However, President Shamgar and Justice Barak, who led the High Court at the time, did not heed the warnings. In fact, this is Edelstein's great sin - his opposition to the High Court's intervention in the Knesset's proceedings.

Also, the attempt to present this confrontation as unprecedented sinful to the truth. For example, in the 1980s, the High Court issued an absolute decree against Knesset Speaker Shlomo Hillel that he would submit racist bills to MK Meir Kahane in the plenum. Despite the High Court decision, Hillel continued to refuse and even made changes to the bylaws. When Kahane returned to enforce the decision through the slander ordinance, the High Court withdrew, making it clear that this was not an operative order.

Surrendering to the blue and white dictates of Edelstein could probably bring about three consequences: the first, that right-wing politicians would be afraid to fight for their values, lest they be left to the mercy of the left. The second, that the left will continue to exaggerate its demands through a politics of personal disqualification that is already well known to us. And third, in the absence of dissenting power, the left will continue to make political use of the High Court.

Dr. Shuki Segev is Senior Lecturer in Law School, Netanya Academic College, Constitutional Law Specialist and Philosophy of Judgment